Re: [spring] Confirmingresolutionofissue#2ofdraft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression
Liyan Gong <gongliyan@chinamobile.com> Thu, 17 August 2023 07:16 UTC
Return-Path: <gongliyan@chinamobile.com>
X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ECD5C14CE39 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Aug 2023 00:16:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.905
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.905 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e98JzSEGGmI2 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Aug 2023 00:16:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cmccmta3.chinamobile.com (cmccmta3.chinamobile.com [221.176.66.81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A715C14CEFC for <spring@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Aug 2023 00:15:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-RM-TagInfo: emlType=0
X-RM-SPAM-FLAG: 00000000
Received: from spf.mail.chinamobile.com (unknown[172.16.121.87]) by rmmx-syy-dmz-app10-12010 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2eea64ddc91d1f7-25990; Thu, 17 Aug 2023 15:15:42 +0800 (CST)
X-RM-TRANSID: 2eea64ddc91d1f7-25990
X-RM-SPAM-FLAG: 00000000
Received: from gongliyan@chinamobile.com ( [172.16.114.1] ) by ajax-webmail-syy-appsvrnew04-11014 (Richmail) with HTTP; Thu, 17 Aug 2023 15:15:41 +0800 (CST)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2023 15:15:41 +0800
From: Liyan Gong <gongliyan@chinamobile.com>
To: jmh <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, spring <spring@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <2b0664ddb6aafbb-000a3.Richmail.00003020890227332401@chinamobile.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_5684_607132699.1692256541957"
X-Priority: 3
X-RM-TRANSID: 2b0664ddb6aafbb-000a3
Encrypt-Channel: web
X-RM-OA-ENC-TYPE: 0
X-RM-FontColor: 0
X-CLIENT-INFO: X-TIMING=0&X-MASSSENT=0&X-SENSITIVE=0
X-Mailer: Richmail_Webapp(V2.4.25)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/ZffFac6_eHDYCFvZKRe6XJOt95g>
Subject: Re: [spring] Confirmingresolutionofissue#2ofdraft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG \(SPRING\)" <spring.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spring/>
List-Post: <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2023 07:16:04 -0000
Hi Joel and WG, The issue has already been addressed in draft-ietf-6man-sids, I agree to close it here. Best Regards, Liyan ----邮件原文----发件人：Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>收件人：SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org>抄 送: (无)发送时间：2023-08-16 09:30:49主题：[spring] Confirming resolution of issue #2 ofdraft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression As mentioned earlier, we also need to confirm the resolution of issue #2 on the subject document. This call will run for 1 week. Please speak up if you either support closing this issue or see aspects that need further discussion or different resolution. Issue 2 reads: As reminded in the conclusion of the adoption call, this document is subject to the policy announced by the SPRING chairs in https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/vCc9Ckvwu5HA-RCleV712dsA5OA/. In particular, this means that this document can not go to WG last call until 6man completes handling of an Internet Draft that deals with the relationship of C-SIDs to RFC 4291. It is hoped and expected that said resolution will be a WG last call and document approval in 6man of a document providing for the way that C-SIDs use the IPv6 destination address field. The document currently being looked at for this is https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-krishnan-6man-sids The editors39 response reads: draft-ietf-6man-sids addresses this issue and it has been WG Last Called by 6man. Thank you, Joel